greenhouse gaseshttp://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/1169/all
enNewspapers Complicit In Selling Phony “War On Coal”http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/12/16/newspapers-complicit-selling-phony-war-coal-report
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/shutterstock_104737748.jpg?itok=OlNjywx5" width="200" height="133" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span class="caps">U.S.</span> newspapers are helping conservatives push their misleading “war on coal” narrative, according to a new report.<br /><br />
There are a number of reasons why the <a href="http://&lt;p&gt;U.S. newspapers are helping conservatives push their misleading “war on coal” narrative, according to a new report.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; There are a number of reasons why the tide has turned against the coal industry around the globe. Mining and burning coal for energy poses huge risks for human health and the environment, for instance, mainly due to the vast amounts of air and water pollution created throughout coal’s lifecycle.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Then of course there’s the fact that coal is the single largest source of global warming pollution&amp;mdash;while coal-fired power represents only 39% of all electricity generated in the U.S, according to the EPA, it is responsible for 75% of carbon emissions.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; And of course the health of coal miners and the safety of mining operations is a cause for concern, as well. The indictment of coal baron Don Blankenship is proof enough of that&amp;mdash;a U.S. attorney recently pressed conspiracy charges against Blankenship for violating federal mine safety and health standards and impeding federal mine safety officials, among other offenses committed before and after the explosion at Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch Mine in 2010 that took the lives of 29 workers.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; If you need more proof, there was a study conducted this year that found the worst form of black lung is affecting miners in Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia at levels not seen in four decades.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; But it’s not just the dangers of the job that are driving coal miners out of work: greater automation in coal mining operations and the rise of cheap, abundant natural gas thanks to fracking have also taken a heavy toll on the coal industry.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Yet a Media Matters analysis of the 233 articles published in major U.S. newspapers this year that mentioned the phrase “war on coal” found that more than half ignored all of these underlying causes of the coal industry’s decline.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Just 68 of the 233 articles mentioned climate change--and that was the issue most frequently cited. The other issues, which have had the biggest impact on coal-producing states in recent decades, recieved “especially sparse” coverage, Media Matter found: “Health and pollution, economic and technological factors, and miner safety received mentions in 43, 33, and eight articles, respectively.”&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Even the articles that did mention climate change were often misleading, Media Matters found, as they often did so in the context of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which aims to lower global warming pollution from power plants by setting out different emissions reduction levels for each state to reach by 2030, which in many cases will mean retiring aging coal-fired plants. The only problem is, those rules have yet to take effect.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Take out the articles that mention climate change alongside the supposed “war on coal,” and you’re left with only 18% of the 233 that mention the other issues that are actually impacting the industry right now.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; The Courier-Journal and The New York Times were the two papers that mentioned the real issues impacting the coal industry most frequently, as you can see from this chart:&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; [CHART]&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Some 127 articles did manage to work in a reference to President Obama being responsible for the “war on coal,” however.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Meanwhile, less than 10% of the 233 articles made any mention of the numerous threats to human health and the environment posed by coal or the many ways in which coal companies attempt to block any new regulations from impeding their ability to conduct business-as-usual.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; [CHARTS] &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p style=&quot;font-size:9px&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Image Credit: &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;" target="_blank">tide has turned against the coal industry</a> around the globe. Mining and burning coal for energy poses huge risks for human health and the environment, for instance, mainly due to the vast amounts of air and water pollution created throughout coal’s lifecycle.<br /><br />
Then of course there’s the fact that coal is the single largest source of global warming pollution—while coal-fired power represents only 39% of all electricity generated in the U.S, <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/electricity.html" target="_blank">according to the Environmental Protection Agency (<span class="caps">EPA</span>)</a>, it is responsible for 75% of carbon emissions.<br /><br />
And of course the health of coal miners and the safety of mining operations is a cause for concern, as well. The <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/11/13/breaking-former-massey-energy-ceo-don-blankenship-indicted-over-2010-mine-disaster" target="_blank">indictment of coal baron Don Blankenship</a> is proof enough of that—a <span class="caps">U.S.</span> attorney recently pressed conspiracy charges against Blankenship for violating federal mine safety and health standards and impeding federal mine safety officials, among other offenses committed before and after the explosion at Massey Energy’s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Big_Branch_Mine_disaster" target="_blank">Upper Big Branch Mine in 2010</a> that took the lives of 29 workers.<br /><br />
If you need more proof, there was a study conducted this year that found a <a href="http://www.courier-journal.com/story/life/wellness/health/2014/09/15/severe-black-lung-returns-s-levels/15664127/" target="_blank">severe form of black lung</a> is affecting miners in Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia at levels not seen in four decades.<br /><br />
But it’s not just the dangers of the job that are driving coal miners out of work: greater automation in coal mining operations and the rise of cheap, abundant natural gas thanks to fracking have also taken a heavy toll on the coal industry.<br /><br />
Yet a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/12/09/study-how-media-advanced-conservatives-misleadi/201806" target="_blank">Media Matters analysis</a> of the 233 articles published in major <span class="caps">U.S.</span> newspapers this year that mentioned the phrase “war on coal” found that more than half ignored all of these underlying causes of the coal industry’s decline.</p>
<!--break-->
<p><br />
Just 68 of the 233 articles mentioned climate change—and that was the issue most frequently cited. The other issues, which have had the biggest impact on coal-producing states in recent decades, recieved “especially sparse” coverage, Media Matter found: “Health and pollution, economic and technological factors, and miner safety received mentions in 43, 33, and eight articles, respectively.”<br /><br />
Even the articles that did mention climate change were often misleading, Media Matters found, as they often did so in the context of the <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/clean-power-plan-proposed-rule" target="_blank">Clean Power Plan</a>, which aims to lower global warming pollution from power plants by setting out different emissions reduction levels for each state to reach by 2030, which in many cases will mean retiring aging coal-fired plants. The only problem is, those rules have yet to take effect.<br /><br />
Take out the articles that mention climate change alongside the supposed “war on coal,” and you’re left with only 18% of the 233 that mention the other issues that are actually impacting the industry right now.<br /><br />
The Courier-Journal and The New York Times were the two papers that mentioned the real issues impacting the coal industry most frequently, as you can see from this chart:<br /><br /><img alt="" src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/Media%20Matters%20chart.png" style="width: 560px; height: 469px;" /><br /><br />
Some 127 articles did manage to work in a reference to President Obama being responsible for the “war on coal,” however.<br /><br />
Meanwhile, less than 10% of the 233 articles made any mention of the numerous threats to human health and the environment posed by coal or the many ways in which coal companies attempt to block any new regulations from impeding their ability to conduct business-as-usual.<br /><br /><img alt="" src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/Media%20Matters%20graph%201.png" style="width: 560px; height: 524px;" /><br /><img alt="" src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/Media%20Matters%20graph%202.png" style="width: 560px; height: 547px;" /><br /> </p>
<p style="font-size:9px"><em>Image Credit: <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-104737748/stock-photo-a-dirty-coalminer-displays-a-lump-of-coal-as-a-power-and-energy-source.html?src=351k-b1WrweInAmeob-O7A-1-9&amp;ws=1" target="_blank">Joe Belanger / Shutterstock.com</a></em></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8164">Media Matters for America</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/662">coal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/19354">newspapaers</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/690">new york times</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/19355">The Courier-Journal</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5157">media</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7278">Mainstream Media</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/19356">news analysis</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9685">Black Lung</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3035">west virginia</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1276">Virginia</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6594">Kentucky</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6039">air pollution</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8916">water pollution</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1169">greenhouse gases</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/19357">climate emissions</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2940">electricity</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/16747">Coal-Fired Power Plants</a></div></div></div>Tue, 16 Dec 2014 13:00:00 +0000Mike Gaworecki8914 at http://www.desmogblog.comWalmart’s Reliance On Dirty Energy Responsible For 8 Million Metric Tons of Carbon Pollution Per Yearhttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/11/28/walmart-s-reliance-dirty-energy-responsible-8-million-metric-tons-carbon-pollution-year
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/shutterstock_186861932.jpg?itok=ubp_tKs_" width="200" height="133" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Recent revelations that the Walton Family, majority owners of Walmart, are <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/11/16/walton-family-owners-walmart-using-their-billions-attack-rooftop-solar" target="_blank">funding attacks against the rooftop solar industry</a> called into question the big-box retailer’s <a href="http://corporate.walmart.com/global-responsibility/environment-sustainability/energy" target="_blank">very public</a> “100% renewable energy” commitment. A <a href="http://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ILSR_WalmartCoal_Final.pdf" target="_blank">new report</a> by the Institute on Local Self-Reliance (<span class="caps">ILSR</span>) documenting Walmart’s massive carbon emissions is likely to add even more fuel to that fire.<br /><br />
According to <span class="caps">ILSR</span>, which also <a href="http://ilsr.org/walton-report/" target="_blank">exposed the Walton Family’s anti-rooftop solar initiatives</a>, Walmart is one of the <a href="http://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ILSR_WalmartCoal_Final.pdf" target="_blank">heaviest users of coal-fired electricity</a> in the United States, resulting in 8 million metric tons of carbon pollution produced every year by the mega chain’s operations.<br /><br />
Since making its environmental commitments in 2005 with great fanfare, Walmart has done little to honor its pledge to transition to renewable energy and “be a good steward of the environment.”<br /><br />
Stacy Mitchell, a senior researcher at <span class="caps">ILSR</span> and co-author of the new report, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stacy-mitchell/walmart-climate-change_b_5063035.html" target="_blank">wrote in April</a> that Walmart's use of renewables peaked in 2011 and has slipped since then.<br /><br />
“Walmart’s progress on renewable power is particularly pitiful when you look at other retailers,” she added. “Staples, Kohl's, and Whole Foods, along with numerous small businesses, have already passed the 100 percent renewable power mark.”<br /><br />
Today, just 3% of the electricity powering Walmart’s <span class="caps">U.S.</span> stores comes from renewable sources.</p>
<!--break-->
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>Despite making a public commitment to sustainability nine years ago, Walmart still favors dirty coal-generated electricity over solar and wind, because the company insists on using the cheapest power it can find,” <a href="http://ilsr.org/walmarts-dirty-energy-secret/" target="_blank">Mitchell said in a statement</a>.<br /><br />
In an email to DeSmog, Walmart spokesman Kevin Gardner said that, “In the U.S., as of 2013, Walmart-driven renewable energy projects provided three percent of our building’s annual electricity needs, and the grid provided another 11 percent for a total of 14 percent renewable electricity in the U.S.”<br /><br />
Gardner also noted that the <a href="http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-means-business-2014-top-us-commercial-solar-users" target="_blank">Solar Energy Industry Association recognized Walmart</a> last month as the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> business with the most installed solar capacity at over 105 megawatts, but he declined to comment on what the sources are for the other 86% of Walmart’s electricity consumption and did not respond to questions about Walmart’s carbon emissions.<br /><br /><span class="caps">ILSR</span>’s report says that Walmart’s <span class="caps">U.S.</span> operations use more than 4.2 million tons of coal every year, which accounts for nearly 75% of the company’s emissions from electricity use in the <span class="caps">U.S.</span><br /><br />
The report also notes that more than half of the Congressional candidates supported by Walmart and the Walton Family in the 2011-2012 election cycle favor dirty energy and oppose action on climate change. The Walton Family has also spent its money to essentially buy green cred in the past. For instance, the Walton Family Fund has given the Environmental Defense Fund, which <a href="http://grist.org/business-technology/edf-sells-green-cred-to-walmart-for-the-low-low-price-of-66-million/" target="_blank">Grist once called</a> “Walmart’s right-hand man in the green game,” some $66 million since 2005. “It turns out, unlike most Walmart jobs, that’s a pretty lucrative gig to have,” Grist wrote.<br /><br />
As Walmart workers continue to <a href="http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Corporate-Greed/Walmart-Workers-to-Strike-as-New-Report-Calls-Company-America-s-Largest-Poverty-Incubator" target="_blank">go on strike to protest low wages</a>, it’s worth noting that “there is a close correlation between low wages and high emissions,” according to Naomi Klein in her latest book, This Changes Everything. “And why wouldn’t there be?” Klein writes. “The same logic that is willing to work laborers to the bone for pennies a day will burn mountains of dirty coal while spending next to nothing on pollution controls because it’s the cheapest way to produce.”<br /><br />
“Walmart could single-handedly strengthen the middle class and help create a vibrant clean energy economy that promotes good jobs,” Green For All executive director <a href="http://ilsr.org/walmarts-dirty-energy-secret/" target="_blank">Jeremy Hays says</a>. “After years of empty promises, Walmart should be using its power and wealth to build stronger and more sustainable communities, not disrespecting workers and endangering the future of our planet.”</p>
<p style="font-size:9px"><em>Image Credit: <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-186861932/stock-photo-salinas-ca-usa-april-walmart-store-exterior-walmart-is-an-american-multinational.html?src=5wP5R0CsmiNUzBvH0W5asA-1-3" target="_blank">Ken Wolter / Shutterstock.com</a> </em></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10401">Walmart</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/19103">Walton Family</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/19104">Walton Family Foundation</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/19105">Institute on Local Self-Reliance</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/662">coal</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6406">Carbon</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1976">emissions</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1169">greenhouse gases</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/722">renewable energy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6443">solar</a></div></div></div>Fri, 28 Nov 2014 20:33:32 +0000Mike Gaworecki8838 at http://www.desmogblog.comNASA Confirms A 2,500-Square-Mile Cloud Of Methane Floating Over US Southwesthttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/10/17/nasa-confirms-2500-square-mile-cloud-methane-floating-over-american-southwest
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/shutterstock_215307400.jpg?itok=Ge04naMf" width="200" height="133" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>When <span class="caps">NASA</span> researchers first saw data indicating a massive cloud of methane floating over the American Southwest, they found it so incredible that they <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/satellite-data-shows-us-methane-hot-spot-bigger-than-expected/#.VEAWE-fdC9o" target="_blank">dismissed it as an instrument error</a>.<br /><br />
But as they continued analyzing data from the European Space Agency’s Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Chartography instrument from 2002 to 2012, the “atmospheric hot spot” kept appearing.<br /><br />
The team at <span class="caps">NASA</span> was finally able to take a closer look, and have now concluded that <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/satellite-data-shows-us-methane-hot-spot-bigger-than-expected/#.VEAWE-fdC9o" target="_blank">there is in fact a 2,500-square-mile cloud of methane</a>—roughly the size of Delaware—floating over the Four Corners region, where the borders of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah all intersect.<br /><br />
A report <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/2014GL061503/" target="_blank">published by the <span class="caps">NASA</span> researchers in the journal <em>Geophysical Research Letters</em></a> concludes that “<strong>the source is likely from established gas, coal, and coalbed methane mining and processing</strong>.” Indeed, the hot spot happens to be above New Mexico's San Juan Basin, the <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2014/1010/How-scientists-overlooked-a-2-500-square-mile-cloud-of-methane-over-the-Southwest-video" target="_blank">most productive coalbed methane basin in North America</a>.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>Methane is 20-times more potent as a greenhouse gas than <span class="caps">CO</span>2, and has been the focus of an increasing amount of attention, especially in regards to <a href="http://e360.yale.edu/feature/on_fracking_front_a_push_to_reduce_leaks_of_methane/2754/" target="_blank">methane leaks from fracking</a> for oil and natural gas. Pockets of natural gas, which is 95-98% methane, are often found along with oil and simply burned off in a very visible process called “flaring.” But scientists are starting to realize that far more methane is being released by the fracking boom than previously thought.<br /><br />
Earlier this year, Cornell environmental engineering professor Anthony Ingraffea released the results of <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/111/30/10955" target="_blank">a study of 41,000 oil and gas wells </a>that were drilled in Pennsylvania between 2000 and 2012, and found newer wells using fracking and horizontal drilling methods were far more likely to be responsible for fugitive emissions of methane.<br /><br />
According to the <span class="caps">NASA</span> researchers, the region of the American Southwest over which the 2,500-square-mile methane cloud is floating emitted 590,000 metric tons of methane every year between 2002 and 2012—almost 3.5 times the widely used estimates in the European Union’s <a href="http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/" target="_blank">Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research</a>—and none of it was from fracking.<br /><br />
That should prompt a hard look at the entire fossil fuel sector, not just fracking, according to University of Michigan Professor Eric Kort, the lead researcher on the study:<br /><br />
“While fracking has become a focal point in conversations about methane emissions, it certainly appears from this and other studies that in the <span class="caps">US</span>, fossil fuel extraction activities across the board likely emit higher than inventory estimates.”<br /> </p>
<p style="font-size:9px"><em>Image Credit: <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-215307400.html" target="blank">Black smoke from burning of associated gas</a> by Leonid Ikan / Shutterstock.com</em></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1907">methane</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14914">leaks</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1976">emissions</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18413">coalbed</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18414">Southwest</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18415">Four Corners</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/689">NASA</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1169">greenhouse gases</a></div></div></div>Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:52:50 +0000Mike Gaworecki8650 at http://www.desmogblog.comEurope Poised to Press Ahead on Drastic Greenhouse Gas Reductions As Other Nations Lag Behindhttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/10/15/europe-poised-press-ahead-drastic-greenhouse-gas-reductions-other-nations-lag-behind
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/7106494883_1473688013_z.jpg?itok=Jwkf1x9y" width="200" height="133" alt="Solar farm" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Pressure continues to grow for European politicians to agree to further reductions of greenhouse gas emissions between now and 2030.</p>
<p>The European Union’s <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm">2020 climate and energy package</a>, which is binding legislation, calls for emissions to be cut by 20 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020. In addition, the plan calls for energy efficiency savings of 20 per cent and a 20 per cent increase in renewable energy technologies.</p>
<p>While the European Union seems largely on track to meet those targets, later this month politicians are going to vote on even greater emissions reductions, energy savings and growth in renewables by 2030.</p>
<p>In January, the European Commission, the executive arm of the <span class="caps">EU</span>, published the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/2030/index_en.htm">2030 policy framework for climate and energy</a>.</p>
<p>Despite six years of economic uncertainty, the plan includes targets to reduce <span class="caps">EU</span> domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent below the 1990 level by 2030, which would ensure that Europe would meet its objective of cutting emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>Europe is already a world leader in emissions reductions and takes climate change extremely seriously. By way of comparison, under the Copenhagen Accord, Canada, the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> and other nations only committed to reducing domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020.</p>
<p>Global <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html">greenhouse gas emissions grew astronomically</a> between 1990, the year Europe’s climate targets are based on, and 2005, the year the Copenhagen’s Accord’s targets are based on — making the European targets far more meaningful than those of Canada and the <span class="caps">U.S.</span></p>
<p>In a nutshell, compared to Europe, most other regions’ efforts to reduce carbon emissions is severely lacking.</p>
<p>Most politicians gathering in Brussels on October 23-24 to vote on new 2030 energy targets know that a continually greener Europe means more local jobs, less toxic pollution, a decreased fossil fuel import bill and increased energy security.</p>
<p>Beyond some coal in its eastern areas, and a bit of hydro in Norway, Europe does not have many traditional sources of energy. It is expensive to keep importing fossil fuels and Europeans are getting tired of Russia either turning off its vast natural gas tap every January or jacking up the prices.</p>
<p>In addition, because of Fukushima, Germany, the <span class="caps">EU</span>’s largest economy and biggest manufacturing center, is withdrawing from nuclear power.</p>
<p>Despite some climate change deniers and those skeptical of renewable energies, especially in the U.K., both onshore and offshore wind and solar power are meeting increasing amounts of Europe’s electricity demand.</p>
<p>The 2030 plan also calls for increasing the share of renewable energy to at least 27 per cent by 2030 while seeing a 30 per cent increase in energy efficiency.</p>
<p>Three weeks after the <a href="http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/"><span class="caps">UN</span> Climate Summit</a>, pressure continues to build for even more ambitious targets.</p>
<p>For instance, <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/listen-to-people-not-the-polluters/blog/50849/">Greenpeace International is calling on Europe's politicians</a> to agree to a 55 per cent cut in domestic carbon emissions for 2030. <span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Greenpeace is also pushing for a </span><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2014/pdf/ee1_en.pdf" style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">45 per cent share of renewables and 40 per cent in energy savings</a><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">.</span></p>
<p>In a Greenpeace blog post, <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/listen-to-people-not-the-polluters/blog/50849/">Virag Kaufer</a> said politicians should listen to the people who elected them, not just the fossil fuel and nuclear industries.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>They are knocking on politicians’ doors because they are scared,” Kaufer said.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>Their business model is outdated. They haven’t invested in renewable energy when it is clearly the way of the future. Instead, the core of their business depends on importing dirty fossil fuels from volatile regimes and maintaining Europe’s geopolitical vulnerability.”</p>
<p><span style="font-size:11px;"><em>Photo: Windwarts Energie via <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/windwaerts/7106494883/in/photolist-bPYDkR-bPYvZK-nR53XB-bJurqB-dnNfp3-dtjjBb-dtjjCj-bvzBkJ-8UPi6q-bB4ZVu-nwN6VN-9HzaNp-bHZ9PF-g8xLcu-nwMRRU-nCpJhH-7941E8-dpLh5s-drFHp1-drFHrW-dt3FNZ-8ix9Bt-bLibYn-3xU14-dptnYH-dtPM3o-dpto5F-bJxdMv-dTbR8K-bJ16ki-dt3STY-dtPM6m-bQypf4-dtPM7E-8x9Whr">Flickr</a></em></span></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1169">greenhouse gases</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/16064">GHGs</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/739">eu</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/740">european union</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18356">2020 climate and energy package</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7446">European Commission</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3328">energy efficiency</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/722">renewable energy</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14193">Copenhagen Accord</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7441">Brussels</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1112">Norway</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/995">russia</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8995">Fukushima</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/nuclear">nuclear</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2400">climate deniers</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/solar-power">solar power</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/wind-power">wind power</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4539">UN Climate Summit</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18357">Greenepeace International</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18358">Virag Kaufer</a></div></div></div>Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:00:00 +0000Chris Rose8639 at http://www.desmogblog.comReining In Global Warming Emissions Will Be Good For The Economy: Reporthttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/10/10/stopping-global-warming-will-be-good-economy-report
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/shutterstock_202512031.jpg?itok=pW1QN3ia" width="200" height="200" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Not only will it lead to more costly and catastrophic events like wildfires, droughts, and floods, but delaying action on climate change will in and of itself consitute a missed opportunity to bolster the <span class="caps">US</span> economy, according to <a href="http://wri.org/seeingisbelieving" target="_blank">a new report</a>.<br /><br />
Entitled <a href="http://wri.org/seeingisbelieving" target="_blank">“Seeing Is Believing: Creating A New Climate Economy In The United States,”</a> the report notes that failing to rein in greenhouse gas emissions will result in a 20% reduction in per capita consumption worldwide over the long term, but stresses that addressing climate change will most certainly be good for the global economy.</p>
<p>Published by the <a href="http://www.wri.org/" target="_blank">World Resources Institute</a>, the report looks at needed changes in five sectors of the <span class="caps">US</span> economy that, altogether, comprised 55% of greenhouse gas emissions in 2012: reducing the carbon intensity of electricity generation; improving efficiency in residential and commercial electricity consumption; building more fuel-efficient passenger vehicles; stopping methane leaks from natural gas systems; and lowering consumption of <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/hfcs-a-growing-threat-to-the-climate/" target="_blank">hydrofluorocarbons (<span class="caps">HFC</span>s)</a>, a potent greenhouse gas commonly used as a refrigerant.<br /><br />
By surveying peer-reviewed reports from academics, industry associations, think tanks, government labs, and others, the report concludes that: “The ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while benefitting the economy has already been demonstrated through numerous policies and programs implemented in the United States.”<br /><br />
Here are key findings from the report in each of those five areas:</p>
<!--break-->
<ul><li>
A regional cap-and-trade initiative in nine Northeast and mid-Atlantic states, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, “will save customers nearly $1.1 billion on electricity bills and create 16,000 net job-years while adding $1.6 billion in net present economic value to the region's economy.”</li>
<br /><li>
While state energy efficiency programs have regularly saved rate payers anywhere from $2 to $5 for every dollar spent, there are many benefits above and beyond consumer savings. The Wisconsin Public Service Commission, for instance, “is expected to inject over $900 million into the state's economy and net over 6,000 new jobs over the next 10 years.”</li>
<br /><li>
As a result of lower fuel costs, owners of model year 2025 cars and light trucks will save between $3,400 and $5,000 over the life of their vehicle compared to 2016 standards, while helping reduce America's dependence on foreign oil by 2 million barrels per day, reaping $3.1 to $9.2 billion in benefits from reduced greenhouse gas pollution, and creating 570,000 jobs by 2030.</li>
<br /><li>
The <span class="caps">EPA</span>'s 2012 standards for natural gas systems will not only reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants like sulfur dioxide and volatile organic compounds, but will also reduce methane emissions so much that they will save the natural gas industry $10 million per year by 2015. The 172,000 metric tons of volatile organic compounds that will not be emitted in 2015, meanwhile, could save as much as $2,640 in health costs per metric ton.</li>
<br /><li>
The Montreal Protocol, an international treaty that took effect in 1989 and was designed to save the ozone layer by phasing out the use of chlorofluorocarbons (<span class="caps">CFC</span>s), is expected to have some $1.8 trillion in global health benefits and to save $460 billion in damages to agriculture and fisheries, while preventing about 11 billion in metric tons of <span class="caps">CO</span>2 emissions annually. A similar measure for phasing out <span class="caps">HFC</span>s, which became widely used after <span class="caps">CFC</span>s were phased out, could have similar benefits, without increasing the costs for consumers.</li>
</ul><p><br />
Of course, all of these benefits can only be realized if politicians take the necessary measures. And failing to do so will have its own costs, just as taking action will have its benefits.<br /><br />
As the report notes: “Delaying action will result in real costs as a result of greater warming and increased stranded high-carbon investments. A July 2014 report by President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers concluded that each decade of delay will increase the costs of mitigation by 40 percent on average.”<br /> </p>
<p style="font-size:9px"><em>Image Credit: <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-202512031/stock-vector-cha-ching.html?src=gL3KCUtvE7LiYkD3LuNV-A-1-0" target="blank">Cha-Ching!</a> by Pat J M / ShutterStock.com</em></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1004">economy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1169">greenhouse gases</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1976">emissions</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17286">World Resources institute</a></div></div></div>Fri, 10 Oct 2014 13:00:00 +0000Mike Gaworecki8624 at http://www.desmogblog.comNY Times' Joe Nocera Overlooks Key Flaws in EDF Fracking Climate Change Studyhttp://www.desmogblog.com/2013/10/06/ny-times-joe-nocera-overlooks-flaws-edf-fracking-climate-change-study
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/Joe%20Nocera%20.jpg?itok=FRz4oFLv" width="200" height="176" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Yesterday,<em> New York Times</em>' columnist <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/joenocera/index.html">Joe Nocera</a> weighed in on the study by <a href="http://desmogblog.com/2013/09/16/frackademia-people-money-behind-edf-fracking-methane-emissions-study" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; color: rgb(255, 205, 51); text-decoration: none; ">Environmental Defense Fund (<span class="caps">EDF</span>) and University of Texas-Austin (<span class="caps">UT</span>-Austin)</a> on the climate change impacts of <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/fracking-the-future/" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; color: rgb(51, 153, 204); text-decoration: none; ">hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”)</a>. <em style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">DeSmogBlog</em> got a special mention in Nocera's op-ed titled, “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/opinion/a-fracking-rorschach-test.html?_r=0">A Fracking Rorschach Test</a>.” </p>
<p>Nocera praised <a href="http://www.che.utexas.edu/faculty-staff/faculty-directory/david-t-allen-phd/"><span class="caps">UT</span>-Austin Professor David Allen</a> and colleagues for obtaining what he claimed was “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/opinion/a-fracking-rorschach-test.html?_r=0">unassailable data</a>” on fugitive methane emissions and fracking's climate change impact potential. </p>
<p>“The reason the Environmental Defense Fund wanted this study done is precisely so that unassailable data, rather than mere estimates, could become part of the debate over fracking,” <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/opinion/a-fracking-rorschach-test.html?_r=0">wrote Nocera</a>. “You can’t have sound regulation without good data.”</p>
<p>Missing from Nocera's praise: new findings by the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change in their latest comprehensive review of the climate crisis.</p>
<p><span class="caps">IPCC</span> revealed “over a 20-year time frame, methane has a global warming potential 86 [times the amount of] <span class="caps">CO</span>2, up from its previous estimate of 72 [times],” <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/02/2708911/fracking-ipcc-methane/">as explained by <em>Climate Progress</em>' Joe Romm</a>.</p>
<p>In juxtaposition, Nocera dismissed <em>DeSmog</em>'s criticisms of the study - one we referred to as “<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/10232">frackademia</a>.” </p>
<p>Simplifying the crux of my <a href="http://desmogblog.com/2013/09/16/frackademia-people-money-behind-edf-fracking-methane-emissions-study">3,000-word <em>DeSmog </em>critique</a> and the <a href="http://desmogblog.com/2013/09/18/big-oil-pr-pros-lobbyists-edf-fracking-climate-study-steering-committee">800-word follow-up</a> as “because the nine companies involved had both cooperated and helped pay for it,” <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/opinion/a-fracking-rorschach-test.html?_r=0">Nocera then rhetorically asks</a> “why a study that necessitated industry cooperation and money is inherently less valid than a study produced by scientists who are openly opposed to fracking was left unanswered.”</p>
<p><!--break--></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The answer: the scientists “openly opposed to fracking” whom he points to, Cornell University's Robert Howarth and Anthony Ingraffea - authors of the first major academic </span><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/cornell-fracking-shale-gas-more-dangerous-than-coal-climate" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">study documenting fracking's climate change impacts published in April 2011</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> - are not the only ones who have pointed to fracking's climate change perils. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Further, </span><em style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">DeSmog's</em><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> critiques of the <span class="caps">EDF</span>/<span class="caps">UT</span>-Austin study run far deeper than oil industry funding and conflicts of interest alone.</span></p>
<h3>
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Recent Study: “Alarming High,” Findings Sans Industry Collaboration</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> </span></h3>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.5em;">Nocera - a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/opinion/a-fracking-rorschach-test.html?_r=0">self-described fracking supporter</a> - overlooked a <a href="ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/papers/montzka/2012_pubs/in%20review_Karion%20et%20al%202012.pdf">key study published in early August</a> by 19 researchers primarily from </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.5em;">National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (<span class="caps">NOAA</span>)</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/07/2426441/methane-leakage-gas-fields/"> and the University of Colorado</a>.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Key differences between the <span class="caps">EDF</span>-Austin study and the <span class="caps">NOAA</span>-Colorado study exist not only in the methodologies and the </span><a href="http://desmogblog.com/2013/09/18/big-oil-pr-pros-lobbyists-edf-fracking-climate-study-steering-committee" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">people</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> and </span><a href="http://desmogblog.com/2013/09/16/frackademia-people-money-behind-edf-fracking-methane-emissions-study" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">money</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> behind the studies, but also in the accompanying results.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><img alt="" src="http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Oil%20and%20Gas%20Wells%20in%20Unitah%20Basin.jpg" style="width: 450px; height: 417px;" /></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:8px;">Uintah Basin Gas Wells; Image Credit: <a href="http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2013/methaneleaks.html"><em>Google Earth</em></a></span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">“The team determined that methane emissions from the oil and natural gas fields in Uintah County totaled about 55,000 kg (more than 120,000 lbs) an hour on the day of the flight,” a <a href="http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2013/methaneleaks.html#sthash.K3GRCYey.dpuf">press release on the <span class="caps">NOAA</span>-University of Colorado study explained</a>. “That emission rate is about 6 to 12 percent of the average hourly natural gas production in Uintah County during the month of February.” </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><img alt="" src="http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/NOAA%3AUniversity%20of%20Colorado%20Study.jpg" style="width: 450px; height: 300px;" /></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:8px;">Unitah Basin fly-over; Photo Credit: <a href="http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2013/methaneleaks.html"><span class="caps">NOAA</span>/University of Colorado</a></span></p>
<p><span class="caps">EDF</span>/<span class="caps">UT</span>-Austin found fugitive methane emissions rates at a scant .42-percent, far lower than the <span class="caps">NOAA</span>/University of Colorado study and 2-4% lower than the Cornell University study.</p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Like the <span class="caps">EDF</span>/<span class="caps">UT</span>-Austin study, the </span><a href="ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/papers/montzka/2012_pubs/in%20review_Karion%20et%20al%202012.pdf" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">researchers did receive industry funding</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> from the </span><a href="http://www.westernenergyalliance.org/alliance/our-members" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">industry-funded Western Energy Alliance</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">. Unlike the <span class="caps">EDF</span>/<span class="caps">UT</span>-Austin study, the samples taken did not require industry compliance because the researchers took them via <a href="http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/08/06/study-finds-alarmingly-high-methane-leakage-from-utah-wells/">11 fly-overs of well production sites</a>.</span></p>
<p>When the <span class="caps">NOAA</span>-Colorado study was released, <span class="caps">EDF</span> called the results “<a href="http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2013/08/05/new-warnings-about-methane-emissions/">alarmingly high</a>.”</p>
<h3>
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Green Completions vs. Representative Sample: No “Super Emitters” Included</span></h3>
<p>While the <span class="caps">NOAA</span>/University of Colorado study analyzed samples across an entire shale gas basin in Utah, the <a href="http://www.utexas.edu/news/2013/09/16/understanding-methane-emissions/"><span class="caps">EDF</span>/<span class="caps">UT</span>-Austin study honed in on well completion sites</a> that the industry calls “green completions.” The <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Environmental Protection Agency <a href="http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=117050">will not mandate these completions until 2015</a>, so they are not representative of the industry's performance at the moment. </p>
<p>“In the past, a well's initial production was typically vented or burned off to allow impurities to clear before the well was tied into a pipeline,” <a href="http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-26/business/35348948_1_natural-gas-shale-gas-marcellus-shale">explained <em>The Philidelphia Inquirer</em></a>. </p>
<p>“Now, more operators are employing reduced-emission completions - a 'green completion; - a process in which impurities such as sand, drilling debris, and fluids from hydraulic fracturing are filtered out and the gas is sold, not wasted.”</p>
<p>Thus, while important measurements, the <span class="caps">EDF</span>/<span class="caps">UT</span>-Austin study - hailed as “<a href="http://www.utexas.edu/news/2013/09/16/understanding-methane-emissions/">unprecedented measurements</a>” in a <span class="caps">UT</span>-Austin press release - <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/19/2646881/study-fracked-wells-methane-emissions-super-emitters/">neglected to measure any of the “super emitters,”</a> <span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">as </span><em style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Climate Progress</em><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">' Joe Romm pointed out.</span></p>
<p>“The 0.42 percent is the average of a bunch of good actors but not necessarily representative of the real world,” explained <a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/aircraft/personnel/sweeney.html"><span class="caps">NOAA</span>'s Colm Sweeney</a>, one of the Unitah Basin study co-authors, in an <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/19/2646881/study-fracked-wells-methane-emissions-super-emitters/">interview with <em>EnergyWire</em></a>. “The super-emitters are lost in a study released this week by scientists at the University of Texas, Austin, and the Environmental Defense Fund.”</p>
<p><img alt="" src="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/aircraft/personnel/sweeney.jpg" style="width: 350px; height: 328px;" /></p>
<p><span style="font-size:8px;">Colm Sweeney; Photo Credit: <a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/aircraft/personnel/sweeney.html"><em><span class="caps">NOAA</span></em></a></span></p>
<p>In Howarth's original critiques of the study cited here on <em>DeSmog</em>, he echoed Sweeney. </p>
<p>“First, this study is based only on evaluation of sites and times chosen by industry,” <a href="http://desmogblog.com/2013/09/16/frackademia-people-money-behind-edf-fracking-methane-emissions-study">wrote Howarth</a>. </p>
<p>“The Environmental Defense Fund over the past year has repeatedly stated that only by working with industry could they and the Allen et al. team have access necessary to make their measurements. So this study must be viewed as a best-case scenario.”</p>
<p>Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - <a href="http://www.riverkeeper.org/about-us/our-team/robert-f-kennedy-jr/">Chief Prosecuting Attorney for the Waterkeeper Alliance</a> and a <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rkennedy/">Senior Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council</a> - sang a similar chorus about the study in a recent interview with National Public Radio's “Stateimpact Pennsylvania.”</p>
<p><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Robert_Kennedy_Jr._speech_1.jpg" style="width: 350px; height: 233px;" /></p>
<p><span style="font-size:8px;">Photo Credit: <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwen">Daniel Schwen</a> | <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Robert_Kennedy_Jr._speech_1.jpg"><em>Wikimedia Commons</em></a></span></p>
<p>”[<span class="caps">EDF</span>/Austin] studied wells that were experimenting with new technologies that are not industry-wide and not required for the industry to see if they could reduce methane rates, and indeed the rates were lower,” <a href="http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2013/10/03/robert-f-kennedy-jr-calls-natural-gas-a-catastrophe">Kennedy stated</a>.</p>
<h3>
Did Fracking Industry 'Partners' Guide <span class="caps">EDF</span>'s Flawed Methodology?</h3>
<p>Unexplored by Nocera - and still unanswered by journalists and researchers: whether the <a href="http://desmogblog.com/2013/09/16/frackademia-people-money-behind-edf-fracking-methane-emissions-study">people and money behind the <span class="caps">EDF</span>/<span class="caps">UT</span>-Austin study</a> and <a href="http://desmogblog.com/2013/09/18/big-oil-pr-pros-lobbyists-edf-fracking-climate-study-steering-committee">Steering Committee</a> pushed the study in a direction that would produce industry-friendly results.</p>
<p><em style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">DeSmogBlog</em><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> has filed a <span class="caps">FOIA</span> request with <span class="caps">UT</span>-Austin to find out what type of industry influence existed for the <span class="caps">EDF</span>/<span class="caps">UT</span>-Austin study, requesting all communications between the industry-stacked Steering Committee and <span class="caps">UT</span>-Austin faculty and staff. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Yet, the biggest takeaway from the <span class="caps">EDF</span>/<span class="caps">UT</span>-Austin study - despite efforts by <a href="http://energyindepth.org/national/bombshell-study-confirms-low-methane-leakage-from-shale-gas/">industry front groups</a> and <a href="http://marcelluscoalition.org/2013/09/groundbreaking-methane-emissions-study-reconfirms-environmental-benefits-safety-of-shale-gas/">lobbyists</a> to assert it as definitive - is that fracking is proceeding at breakneck speed regardless of the still unknown and daunting scope of all the threats that unconventional oil and gas drilling poses to human health, ecosystems and the climate.</span></p>
<h3 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; font-size: 1.4em; ">
Bottom Line: Too Many Unanswered Questions to Allow Reckless Fracking</h3>
<p>DeSmogBlog stands by the concluding recommendations in our 2011 report “<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/fracking-the-future/desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf">Fracking the Future</a>,” and would like to know which aspects of this position are objectionable to Mr. Nocera and others who are promoting the <span class="caps">EDF</span>/Austin study: </p>
<ul><li>
A national moratorium on hydraulic fracturing for unconventional gas until independent scientific studies are conducted to verify that fracking is not responsible for adverse outcomes on drinking water, public health and the global climate.<br /> </li>
<li>
The federal government, not the states, should strictly oversee setting and enforcing standards for unconventional gas drilling. Federal oversight of the unconventional gas industry is critical, since the states have not demonstrated the capacity to hold drillers accountable for contamination of water supplies, growing air pollution problems and the potentially devastating climate change implications of fugitive methane and other emissions. Federal agencies should employ existing federal statutes that don’t currently apply to gas drilling, and review the need for any new standards necessary to protect public health and the environment.<br /> </li>
<li>
Greater scrutiny is needed on common drilling practices such as cementing procedures, wastewater handling and storage of harmful drilling chemicals.<br /> </li>
<li>
Congress and federal agency officials must immediately require mandatory industry reporting of lifecycle emissions of gas drilling operations to ensure relevant and reliable information is accessible to the public, especially independent experts.<br /> </li>
<li>
They must also require mandatory disclosure of fracking fluid chemicals, including the exact chemical recipes used in each operation.</li>
</ul><p><br />
As we concluded in our report, “uncertainties about the extent of methane emissions and leakage from drilling operations, storage tanks and pipelines carrying gas” remain a critical issue for scientists to assess. Without mandatory federal policy requiring industry disclosure of life-cycle methane leakage, we are all left in the dark about the true risks of the fracking boom.</p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; font-size: 8px; line-height: 1.5em;">Photo Credit: </span><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/52614599@N00" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; font-size: 8px; line-height: 1.5em;">Doc Searls</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; font-size: 8px; line-height: 1.5em;"> | </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Joseph_Nocera_at_Berkman_Center.jpg" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; font-size: 8px; line-height: 1.5em;"><em>Wikimedia Commons</em></a></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12185">Joe Nocera</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13975">super emitters</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6308">Geophysical Research Letters</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2934">University of Colorado</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10232">Frackademia</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4876">Climate Progress</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13972">Green Completions</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8316">Western Energy Alliance</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13973">Unitah Basin</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/the-new-york-times">The New York Times</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5133">fracking</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8983">EDF</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3066">environmental defense fund</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5137">hydraulic fracturing</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1907">methane</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1169">greenhouse gases</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1908">carbon dioxide</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4877">Joe Romm</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1044">Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5353">Robert F. Kennedy Jr.</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13786">David Allen</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/758">National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/noaa">NOAA</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/676">IPCC</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/834">intergovernmental panel on climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6011">Robert Howarth</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7829">Bob Howarth</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7832">Tony Ingraffea</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13974">Colm Sweeney</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6010">Anthony Ingraffea</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2964">Cornell University</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6344">unconventional gas</a></div></div></div>Mon, 07 Oct 2013 04:16:58 +0000Steve Horn7533 at http://www.desmogblog.comNew Nature Study Calls Melting Underwater Arctic Permafrost An "Economic Time Bomb"http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/26/new-nature-study-calls-melting-underwater-arctic-permafrost-economic-time-bomb
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/burning%20ice%20image.jpg?itok=gS7xMB9k" width="200" height="153" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Three academics walk into a bar.</p>
<p>After what must have been the worst happy hour ever, they emerge having discovered that melting oceanic permafrost could come with a hefty $60 trillion dollar price tag, slightly less than the entire world economy.</p>
<p><em>We calculate that the costs of a melting Arctic will be huge, because the region is pivotal to the functioning of Earth systems such as oceans and the climate. The release of methane from thawing permafrost beneath the East Siberian Sea, off northern Russia, alone comes with an average global price tag of $60 trillion in the absence of mitigating action — a figure comparable to the size of the world economy in 2012 (about $70 trillion). The total cost of Arctic change will be much higher.</em></p>
<p>Penned in a recent issue of <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/full/499401a.html"><em>Nature</em></a>, Gail Whitman (Sustainability professor at Erasmus University Netherlands), Chris Hope (Policy modeler, University of Cambridge) and Peter Wadhams (Ocean physics, University of Cambridge) set out to calculate the economic consequences of an ice-free Arctic, which some have estimated could happen as early as 2020.<br /><br />
Their main concern followed the melting of underwater permafrost - called methane clathrates - in which natural methane gas beneath the ocean is trapped in frozen beds of ice. Normally, the cold temperatures of ocean water and high pressure of ocean sitting atop the clathrates keep them in place. But with the Arctic ice cap quickly melting, the warming may penetrate farther toward the ocean floor and release this 50 Gt reservoir of methane.</p>
<p>Like stinky bubbles emanating from their Arctic bathtub, methane, a much more powerful greenhouse gas than <span class="caps">CO</span><sub>2</sub> with about 20x the warming capability, could either be released gradually over time, or in one fell swoop, accelerating atmospheric warming.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>The authors explain that despite the fact that the excess emissions would originate in the Arctic, many of the consequences would predominantly be felt in developing nations in the form of “extreme weather, poorer health, and lower agricultural production.”</p>
<p>This new information counters more recent arguments that an open Arctic will be economically beneficial. Many countries have gotten a head start on the land grab to exploit the region's resources and oil reserves. Others have looked forward to being able to use the Northern Sea Route across Russia, saving ships thousands of miles of traveling distance instead of having to ship goods the long way around southern Asia.</p>
<p>So what excuse is the denier peanut gallery trotting out this time? Over at <a href="http://junkscience.com/2013/07/24/claim-arctic-methane-release-a-time-bomb-that-could-cost-60-trillion/comment-page-1/">JunkScience</a>, a few commenters think they have it all figured out:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Then the methane should be captured, sequestered, and oxidized into the less-powerful climate agents carbon dioxide and water vapor. Might as well do that in a boiler and generate [sic] electricty. Or sequester it into people’s homes so they can keep warm while they reduce the risk of climate change.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Bonus points on this one for admitting that climate change imposes a risk and stems from greenhouse gases. However, they do miss the point that the idea would be to curb these emissions in the first place. Burning methane into carbon dioxide still means <span class="caps">CO</span>2 would accumulate in the atmosphere and accelerate future consequences.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Permafrost is a carbon sink. Thaw the plants and they will grow and absorb carbon. Otherwise, where did the big pile of frozen plant matter come from? You know, the plant matter that is emitting the methane? It didn’t accumulate while the [sic] pants were frozen.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Unless ancient rainforest trees are magically sprouting out of permafrost soil, we're going to have to throw this idea out the window. Permafrost is frozen soil heavy in organic matter, but organic matter does not equal plants. It contains methane because the organic matter decays over time. At the ocean floor, permafrost here is refering to frozen natural gas.</p>
<p>America's brain trust aside, the real scientists have put it quite simply,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“There is a steep global price tag attached to physical changes in the Arctic.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/pdf/499401a.pdf">Read the Nature piece [<span class="caps">PDF</span>]</a>.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1806">permafrost</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1990">Nature</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2236">deniers</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2067">junkscience</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8103">economics</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13288">methane clathrates</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1907">methane</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2800">natural gas</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1908">carbon dioxide</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1169">greenhouse gases</a></div></div></div>Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:00:00 +0000Laurel Whitney7356 at http://www.desmogblog.comDebunking GWPF Briefing Paper No3 - The Truth About Greenhouse Gaseshttp://www.desmogblog.com/debunking-gwpf-briefing-paper-no3-truth-about-greenhouse-gases
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>This post is part 3 of a series examining the <a href="http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1131448&amp;SubsidiaryNumber=0"><span class="caps">UK</span>-registered educational charity the Global Warming Policy Foundation (<span class="caps">GWPF</span>)</a> and the work it allegedly does explaining global warming to the public.<br /><br />
In <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/what-does-gwpf-really-stand">part 1</a> the <span class="caps">GWPF</span> and its principles (or lack of them) were examined. In <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/debunking-gwpf-briefing-paper-no2-sahel-greening">part 2</a> the many serious and fundamental flaws in <span class="caps">GWPF</span> Briefing Paper No2 were laid bare. So it will be good if we can find something positive to say about the <span class="caps">GWPF</span> here in part 3.<br /><br />
The <span class="caps">GWPF</span> <a href="http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/happer-the_truth_about_greenhouse_gases.pdf">Briefing Paper No3 The Truth About Greenhouse Gases</a> examined here is a longer document (all 5,500 words of it) written by “<em>a working scientist</em>” (a physicist to be exact) who tells us he has “<em>a better background than most in the physics of climate.”</em> This sounds good as there is much physics involved in the subject of greenhouse gases, things like the <span class="caps">EM</span> spectrum and climate forcings. So on face value, this <span class="caps">GWPF</span> Briefing Paper No3 should be a worthwhile read.</p>
<!--break-->
<p class="rtecenter"><img alt="" src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Happer01.jpg" style="width: 500px; height: 191px;" /></p>
<p class="rtecenter"><img alt="" src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Happer02.jpg" style="width: 500px;" /></p>
<p><strong><span class="caps">WHAT</span> <span class="caps">IT</span>'S <span class="caps">REALLY</span> <span class="caps">ABOUT</span></strong><br />
Sadly, the paper actually has very little to say about greenhouse gases. A mere 5% is devoted to <span class="caps">CO</span>2 as a greenhouse gas. Other than brief comments about water vapour, the report fails even to mention any of the other greenhouse gases.<br /><br />
Instead the paper devotes 13% of its length to defining safe limits of <span class="caps">CO</span>2 for breathing, a further 13% to all that horrid science being done by climatologists, 15% to the oh-so-hard time skeptics have trying to confront this horrid science and 54% explaining how science has been corrupted and truthfulness lost.</p>
<p>So it is ironic that “The Truth About Greenhouse Gases” will not be found in this <span class="caps">GWPF</span> Briefing Paper No3.</p>
<p>The paper is authored by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer">Professor William Happer of Princeton University</a>, a member of the <a href="http://thegwpf.org/who-we-are/academic-advisory-council.html"><span class="caps">GWPF</span>'s 26-strong Academic Advisory Council.</a></p>
<p>The <span class="caps">GWPF</span> tries to tell us that they embrace the full spectrum of viewpoints on climate but it is safe to say that Happer's views are extreme. He signed the sceptical <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition">Oregon Petition,</a> was a <a href="http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/Signatures__APS_Council_Study.html">petitioner against the 2007 <span class="caps">APS</span> climate change statement</a>, and also <a href="http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/happer_senate_testimony.html">testified in 2009</a> and <a href="http://globalwarming.house.gov/files/HRG/052010SciencePolicy/happer.pdf">in 2010 to <span class="caps">US</span> government committees</a>. He is an “<em>outright sceptic.</em>”</p>
<p>As Happer is a physicist, the reader may yet still expect the scientific reasoning that lies behind a sceptical viewpoint but even this is absent. Instead the reader is presented with many wise quotes from the likes of Winston Churchill and even Mrs Simpson (that is Wallis not Marge).</p>
<p class="rtecenter"><img alt="" src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Happer03.jpg" style="width: 300px; height: 385px;" /></p>
<p><strong><span class="caps">THE</span> <span class="caps">SCIENCE</span> <span class="caps">BIT</span></strong><br />
Professor Happer does find time to make some comment of a scientific nature. Apparently 50-odd million years ago, when <span class="caps">CO</span>2 levels were “<em>several</em>” thousand ppm, “<em>life flourished abundantly.</em>”</p>
<p>It is likely Happer refers to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETM">Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (<span class="caps">PETM</span>)</a> during which mass extinctions occurred in the oceans. On land this was when small mammals discovered that legs were not up to the job so some of them <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lyGqD_GWQ7oC&amp;pg=PT325&amp;lpg=PT325&amp;dq=bats+Eocene&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=4sA_U9LtNL&amp;sig=xmcJmUIXpU4cRG1z-gXd7TIBGFU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=jYgZT8sqzsnyA_6W1J4L&amp;ved=0CGgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&amp;q=bats%20Eocene&amp;f=false">evolved into bats.</a> It would thus be exceedingly difficult to defend Happer's comment that “<em>life flourished abundantly.</em>”<br /><br />
Happer also tells us that during the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas">Younger-Dryas event</a> 12,000 years ago (a period of rapid climate change), “<em>our human ancestors</em>” survived “<em>just fine.</em>” He gives no source for this assertion, not even a link to findyourancestors.com.</p>
<p>Perhaps his point is that humanity was self-evidently not wiped out by the event. But if this is what he meant, it is not what he said.</p>
<p><strong><span class="caps">IT</span> <span class="caps">AIN</span>'T <span class="caps">NO</span> <span class="caps">POISON</span></strong><br />
Strangely for a scientist, Happer makes a very large number of unsupported assertions. He is most keen to stress the benefits brought to plants from a higher <span class="caps">CO</span>2 level. He tells us “<em>most green plants evolved at <span class="caps">CO</span>2 levels of several thousand ppm.</em>” (Here's hoping Happer hasn't overlooked the important <a href="http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/C4plants.html">C4 grasses</a> that evolved <a href="http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/125/3/1198.full">in the last 15 million years</a> when <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm"><span class="caps">CO</span>2 levels</a> were no higher than today.)</p>
<p>Happer assures the reader that “<em>plants grow better and have better flowers and fruit at higher <span class="caps">CO</span>2.</em>” Given his certainty about this, we must pity the researchers struggling to identify these “<em>better flowers and fruit</em>” that global warming will bring (eg <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01476.x/full">Lobell <span class="amp">&amp;</span> Field 2007,</a> <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1161030106001341">Tubiello et al 2007,</a> <a href="http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/26790/1/IND43816516.pdf">Long et al 2009,</a> <a href="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1666/2333.short">Leakey 2009,</a> <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=1Vpe0JvYTJYC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PR7&amp;dq=CO2+fertilisation+crops&amp;ots=Xkp763QCia&amp;sig=_Ht1XPi8lMkASYMh10MJyHp62K8#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false">Nelson et al 2009,</a> etc. <a href="http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=crop+yields+co2+fertilization&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholart&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=cUNeT8rnBemQ0AWH0c23DA&amp;ved=0CB4QgQMwAA">Google Scholar</a> provides pagefuls of them). They must all surely be needing some advice from the learned Happer.</p>
<p>And Happer does not ignore the impact of high <span class="caps">CO</span>2 on us humans. Because this is important, for once Happer desists from making unsupported assertions and quotes a source. <span class="caps">NASA</span> have shown that <span class="caps">CO</span>2 concentrations up to 5,000 ppm are safe to breath for a whole 1,000 days. (There is perhaps the additional assumption that you are a grown up and also as fit as an astronaut.)</p>
<p>So Happer pronounces his judgement. Between the levels of 150ppm and 5,000ppm he asserts <span class="caps">CO</span>2 is harmless to all living things.</p>
<p>But steady on. What about greenhouse gases?</p>
<p><strong><span class="caps">GREENHOUSE</span> <span class="caps">GASES</span> <span class="caps">IN</span> A <span class="caps">NUTSHELL</span></strong><br />
In this lengthy document on greenhouse gases, Happer does manage to provide a few lines on <span class="caps">CO</span>2 as a greenhouse gas. He tells us a doubling of <span class="caps">CO</span>2, all other things remaining equal, will raise global temperatures by “<em>about one degree Celsius</em>” (<a href="http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/044.htm">actually about 1.2 deg C +/-10%</a> ) but he says the climate is not sensitive to such warming as “<em>there is observational evidence that the feedback factor is small and may even be negative.</em>”</p>
<p>Happer fails to mention what this all-important “<em>observational evidence</em>” comprises. Given his assertion contradicts <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-4-5.html">the present scientific consensus</a>, without providing a clue to the nature of his “<em>observational evidence</em>” his words are but wild speculation.</p>
<p>Even so Happer tells us mankind has nothing to fear from increasing <span class="caps">CO</span>2. The Earth's temperature has changed in the past due to a number of factors and “<em>while <span class="caps">CO</span>2 is one of these factors, it is seldom the dominant one.</em>”</p>
<p>In saying this, Happer is not ruling out <span class="caps">CO</span>2 as the “<em>dominant</em>” factor in climate change. He is simply saying it doesn't happen very often. A bit like saying it isn't very often that <a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2008.ems">1.3 trillion tons of <span class="caps">CO</span>2 is emitted into the atmosphere</a> from the burning of coal and oil and natural gas.</p>
<p class="rtecenter"><img alt="" src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Happer04.jpg" style="width: 250px; height: 303px;" /></p>
<p><br /><strong><span class="caps">THE</span> <span class="caps">TRUTH</span> <span class="caps">ABOUT</span> “<span class="caps">THE</span> <span class="caps">TRUTH</span> <span class="caps">ABOUT</span> <span class="caps">GREENHOUSE</span> <span class="caps">GASES</span>”</strong><br /><span class="caps">GWPF</span> Briefing Paper No3 “The Truth About Greenhouse Gases” is a vacuous tirade on <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-1.html">a subject</a> the author apparently couldn't even be bothered to try to understand.</p>
<p>However, before passing a final judgement, there is one subject covered at length within this paper which requires more consideration. As it is a subject raised within other <span class="caps">GWPF</span> publications (and elsewhere), the next post in this series shall return to this Briefing Paper to examine it.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1169">greenhouse gases</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4507">Climate Denier</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4768">global warming policy foundation</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5041">William Happer</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6314">GWPF</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8278">MA Rodger</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8279">climate science skepticism</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8595">PETM</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8596">Younger Dryas</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8597">CO2 fertilization</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8704">C4 grasses</a></div></div></div>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 03:15:54 +0000MA Rodger6123 at http://www.desmogblog.comBig Emitters to EPA: "Don't Ask, Won't Tell" http://www.desmogblog.com/big-emitters-epa-dont-ask-wont-tell
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/Smokestacks.png?itok=y-Fi5nYI" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span class="caps">AP</span> reports today: “Some of the country’s largest emitters of heat-trapping gases, including businesses that publicly support efforts to curb global warming, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101028/ap_on_bi_ge/us_greenhouse_gases_transparency" target="_blank">don’t want the public knowing exactly how much they pollute</a>. Oil producers and refiners, along with manufacturers of steel, aluminum and even home appliances, are fighting a proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency that would make the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that companies release - and the underlying data businesses use to calculate the amounts - available online.”<br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: verdana, geneva;">A spokesperson for Honeywell argued, </span>“There is no need for the public to have information beyond what is entering the atmosphere.” Read the story <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101028/ap_on_bi_ge/us_greenhouse_gases_transparency" target="_blank">here</a>.<!--break--></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1169">greenhouse gases</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2920">pollution</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5343">trade secrets</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5344">emissions disclosure</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5345">Honeywell</a></div></div></div>Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:54:26 +0000Ross Gelbspan4894 at http://www.desmogblog.comThe Climate Change Hangoverhttp://www.desmogblog.com/climate-change-hangover
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/CO2%20and%20temperature_1.jpg?itok=EcT-5E0Q" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Let’s assume that the Obama administration and Congress get their act together this year and make good on their pledge of enacting meaningful climate legislation by establishing the nation’s first cap-and-trade system.</p>
<p>Let’s further assume, for the sake of argument, that the administration, working with its international partners, succeeds in drafting a robust successor to the Kyoto Protocol at the climate talks in Copenhagen later this year.</p>
<p>If we accept that the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> climate bill, known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act (<span class="caps">ACES</span>), will accomplish its goal of bringing down emission levels 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050—which is nothing to sneeze at when you consider that a substantial fraction of policymakers (including some Democrats) vehemently oppose the measure—then the question becomes: Will it be enough to prevent the worst of climate change?<!--break--></p>
<p>Having spent the better part of the last two decades predicting the severity of unconstrained climate change, many researchers are now shifting their focus to the aftermath of emission mitigation. The limited consensus so far has been sobering: Even if we were to significantly ratchet down our current emission levels by midcentury, a full recovery to safe levels, let alone a partial one, could take many decades—if not centuries.</p>
<p>The scenarios become especially grim if we overshoot certain “dangerous” thresholds of atmospheric <span class="caps">GHG</span> levels—around 1.7°C above pre-industrial levels, according to James Hansen, or the more moderate 2°C above pre-industrial levels, according to the European Union.</p>
<p>Under certain worst-case scenarios, some researchers have predicted that we would need to keep emissions at near-zero, or even negative, levels to stabilize near-surface temperature—hardly realistic goals. Until now, however, few studies have attempted to examine the underlying reasons for the sluggish recovery rates.</p>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/4/1/014012/erl9_1_014012.html">new study detailed in the journal <em>Environmental Research Letters</em></a>, Jason A. Lowe of the Met Office Hadley Center at the University of Reading and his colleagues did just that, using two global climate models—the HadCM3LC model, a complex general circulation model (<span class="caps">GCM</span>) developed by the Hadley Center, and the <span class="caps">MAGICC</span> model, a simple model—to scrutinize the accuracy of previous predictions and assess their relevance in a more policy-centric context.</p>
<p>They used four different scenarios which followed identical emission estimates up until 2000, after which they followed <a href="http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/ddc/sres/"><span class="caps">SRES</span> A2 emissions</a> until at least 2010. For the first three scenarios, <span class="caps">CO</span>2 emissions were set to zero for the next 100 years at years 2012, 2050, and 2100. The fourth scenario, which was meant to better approximate real-life conditions, also included forcing from other <span class="caps">GHG</span>s and pollutants, such as sulfate aerosol particles.</p>
<p>Using only the <span class="caps">CO</span>2 component of the <span class="caps">SRES</span> A2 emissions scenario to force the complex <span class="caps">GCM</span> until the end of the 21st century, they found that atmospheric levels would likely exceed 1000 ppm in 2100. Setting emissions to zero in 2012 and 2050 resulted in atmospheric levels exceeding 404 ppm and 556 ppm, respectively. In all cases, the model simulated extremely low rates of decline in atmospheric <span class="caps">CO</span>2 levels.</p>
<p>The predicted temperature rise was considerable: over 2°C by 2050 and, assuming emissions are zeroed beginning that year, around 0.2°C per century thereafter, suggesting that temperatures could remain dangerously high for a long time. Furthermore, the 2050 and 2100 scenarios, by drastically altering precipitation levels and global temperatures, resulted in the terrestrial biosphere becoming a net <em>source</em> of carbon—emitting up to 50 GtC (gigatons of carbon) and 76 GtC, respectively, over the ensuing century. (The oceans, however, could potentially compensate by increasing their uptake.)</p>
<p>In the fourth scenario, with multiple <span class="caps">GHG</span> emissions peaking in 2015 before adjusting to an annual long-term reduction rate of 3 percent, the authors found that there was a 55 percent chance that temperatures would overshoot the 2°C. Worse, there was a 30 percent chance that temperatures would remain above this dangerous threshold for at least a century, and a 10 percent chance that they would exceed it for up to 3 centuries. And here’s the kicker:</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>This particular scenario has a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions approaching 50% of the 1990 values by 2050, which we note is similar to the G8 statement in 2008 to consider ‘the goal of achieving at least 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050’.”</p>
<p>In other words, even adopting the emission targets set by the global community (which could be further watered down) may not be enough to prevent temperatures from staying dangerously high.</p>
<p>Putting aside the usual list of caveats, this study should worry anyone who believes that passing a climate bill, even an ambitious one, would solve all of our problems. The basic message is that climate change is here to stay and, though governments need to do everything in their power to forestall the worst, we will have to live with its effects for many decades to come. As such, Lowe and his colleagues argue, there should be more of a focus among the research community on studying the resiliency of what they call “Earth system components,” such as the Greenland ice sheet or the thermohaline circulation.</p>
<p>John Holdren, who, as director of the White House Office of Science <span class="amp">&amp;</span> Technology Policy, oversaw the publication of the <a href="http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts">new 196-page report issued by the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Global Change Research Program</a>, and Steven Chu, the head of the Department of Energy, are well aware of the risks of complacency and presumably will do their utmost to ensure that the administration keeps its eyes on the climate ball.</p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1169">greenhouse gases</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1503">united states</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3729">steven chu</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3928">John Holdren</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4058">temperatures</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4360">climate models</a></div></div></div>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:34:02 +0000Jeremy Jacquot3938 at http://www.desmogblog.comThe OMB-EPA Kerfuffle That Wasn'thttp://www.desmogblog.com/omb-epa-kerfuffle-wasnt
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/orszag_1.jpg?itok=Xm3-ItRm" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Is the White House Office of Management and Budget (<span class="caps">OMB</span>) deliberately trying to sabotage the <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s efforts to regulate carbon dioxide emissions? Is Peter Orszag, the agency’s brainy and genial director, secretly in cahoots with Republican opponents of President Obama’s climate policies?</p>
<p><em>Not</em> quite – though that may have been your first impression upon reading the <a href="http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/epas-greenhouse-gas-proposal-critiqued/">raft</a> <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-epa-warming13-2009may13,0,5045282.story">of articles</a> published yesterday that breathlessly reported that an <span class="caps">OMB</span> memo had strongly criticized the <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s proposal to regulate greenhouse gases.<!--break--></p>
<p>The <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/05/12/epas-jackson-then-again-maybe-we-wont-regulate-emissions/">initial story</a>, as <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124214922088511421.html">dished out by Dow Jones reporter Ian Talley</a>, had all the elements of a hot scoop: internal dissension, a scathing government memo hinting at incompetence and impropriety, and a seeming reversal of one of the administration’s core positions. Eagerly picked up by the press and quickly circulated among the blogosphere, it provided welcome fodder for conservative critics of the president intent on sinking his <span class="caps">GHG</span> mitigation policies.</p>
<p>The one problem: the story, as originally formulated, is <em>dead wrong</em>.</p>
<p>As Orszag later clarified on <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/05/12/ClearingtheAir/">his blog</a>, his agency had in no way opposed the <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s proposal to regulate greenhouse gases. Any stories suggesting the contrary were “unfounded,” he said.</p>
<p>The supposed <span class="caps">OMB</span> “memo” is, in fact, a collection of all the different comments gathered from the various agencies during the inter-agency review process of the <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s proposal. The comment that was widely picked up by the press to suggest that the <span class="caps">OMB</span> did not agree with the <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s recommendations was revealed to have been made by a Bush administration holdover (surprise, surprise) at the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy.</p>
<p>As <em>Grist</em>’s David Roberts <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-13-omb-epa-sba-endangerment/">pointed out</a> in his post-mortem assessment of the debacle, the views of this “independent entity” do not “necessarily reflect the views of the <span class="caps">SBA</span> or the Administration.”</p>
<p>So there you have it: a reporter, perhaps tipped off by former Bush administration staff or sympathetic energy industry executives, found one small section critical of the <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s proposal among an extensive list of comments and used it to write a story suggesting there is broad disagreement in the Obama camp over how to regulate <span class="caps">GHG</span>s – when there is, in fact, none. As Orszag explains:</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>The bottom line is that <span class="caps">OMB</span> would not have concluded review, which allows the finding to move forward, if we had concerns about whether <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s finding was consistent with either the law or the underlying science. The press reports to the contrary are <strong>simply false</strong>.”</p>
<p>In a certain sense, you can’t blame the mainstream media entirely for jumping on this story. As Roberts notes, conservative lawmakers and interest groups immediately latched onto it, loudly proclaiming it to be the “smoking gun” that proved that the <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s proposal would “threaten” the economy and have other grave consequences, prompting reporters like <span class="caps">ABC</span>’s Jake Tapper to pick up on it too. This does not excuse the media’s behavior – though, to be fair, I should note that most publications updated their stories upon seeing Orszag’s comments – but, unfortunately, it’s the name of the game.</p>
<p>Just as the mainstream media has been slow to parse deniers’ outrageous claims out of a misguided sense of “balance,” so has it also been slow to do due diligence on stories like this – and climate change is hardly the only topic that gets this treatment – that can confuse and mislead readers.</p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/grist">Grist</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/epa">EPA</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/wall-street-journal">wall street journal</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/competitive-enterprise-institute">competitive enterprise institute</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1169">greenhouse gases</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1908">carbon dioxide</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4339">OMB</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4340">peter orszag</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4341">ian talley</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4342">dow jones</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4343">david roberts</a></div></div></div>Thu, 14 May 2009 07:27:48 +0000Jeremy Jacquot3910 at http://www.desmogblog.comWhen Deniers Deny Their Ownhttp://www.desmogblog.com/when-deniers-deny-their-own
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/headinsand_0_4.jpg?itok=IOMGxH6C" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Who can you trust, if not your own advisers? That is the inconvenient question raised by <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=1&amp;hp"><em><span class="caps">NYT</span></em> reporter Andrew C. Revkin</a> in a newly published article that reveals the extent to which the coal and oil industries ignored the advice of their own scientists on the question of climate change.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;ct=res&amp;cd=3&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sourcewatch.org%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DGlobal_Climate_Coalition&amp;ei=kGnxSZDvC4iQtAPqrfj7Cg&amp;usg=AFQjCNHPdb4QG-iIQp4Rj5VGcgwcF8emTg">Global Climate Coalition</a> (how’s that for an Orwellian name?), an industry-funded group that spent years vehemently contesting any evidence linking anthropogenic activity to climate change, found itself in the uncomfortable position of rejecting its own experts’ recommendations when they reached the inevitable conclusion that the contribution of manmade greenhouse gas emissions to climate change “could not be refuted.”<!--break--></p>
<p>That’s right: even the scientists that these companies had consistently trotted out to discredit the findings of the <span class="caps">IPCC</span> could no longer deny the truth when faced with the hard facts. They acknowledged as much in an internal report released in 1995 in which they stated unequivocably that: “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as <span class="caps">CO</span>2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.”</p>
<p>The advisory committee that authored the 17-page report may have disagreed with the <span class="caps">IPCC</span>’s conclusion that anthropogenic activities were warming the climate, but that did not mean that it hewed to the skeptic line. Indeed, though it recognized that “the contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes,” it dismissed them as unpersuasive at best – plainly stating that “they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change.”</p>
<p>When confronted with this frank assessment, the leadership of the Global Climate Coalition did the only reasonable thing: drop the offending passages and expunge the report’s existence from the public record. (What, you were expecting something else?) And, if that didn’t keep all the snooping reporters away, just play dumb – as William O’Keefe, the former head of the <span class="caps">GCC</span>, smartly demonstrates here:</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>I have no idea why the section on the contrarians would have been deleted. One thing I’m absolutely certain of is that no member of the board of the Global Climate Coalition said, ‘We have to suppress this.’”</p>
<p>So despite being proven wrong from the get-go, the <span class="caps">GCC</span> proceeded along its merry way, sowing confusion and dooming the government to protracted inaction. As George Monbiot astutely points out, Big Oil and Big Coal did not need to win the argument in order to win the debate: all they had to do was show up with a larger megaphone (and deeper pockets).</p>
<p>This again points to the utter failure of the mainstream media, which, in its overwrought efforts to give both “sides” of the argument a fair shake, legitimized the skeptics’ views and helped sow doubt. Or, as <a href="http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/How_balanced_journalism_helped_the_climate_change_deniers.html"><em>Attytood</em>’s Will Bunch</a> put it: “What’s disturbing (although, again, not all <em>that</em> surprising) is the role that supposed “journalistic ethics” played in spreading this Big Lie, by cluelessly giving these charlatans equal play with the established science on the issue.”</p>
<p>Amen.<br /></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/andrew-revkin">andrew revkin</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/662">coal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1169">greenhouse gases</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1286">oil</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1557">global warming skeptics</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1908">carbon dioxide</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2126">global climate coalition</a></div></div></div>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:27:53 +0000Jeremy Jacquot3879 at http://www.desmogblog.comCorporate honchos acknowledge global warming but falter on emission cutshttp://www.desmogblog.com/corporate-honchos-acknowledge-global-warming-but-falter-on-emission-cuts
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">T</span>he Business Roundtable, while it took no stand on mandatory regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions, did call for <a href="http://www.businessroundtable.org/">a national inventory to encourage voluntary reductions </a> from individual companies.</p> <p>It also agreed to encourage energy efficiency to reduce electricity use by 25%, and development of new technologies that emit little or no greenhouse gases, relative to current technologies.</p> <p>The group further suggested working with other countries to adopt a global solution that includes reduction of deforestation in the tropics.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">In concluding, the <span class="caps">CEO</span>’s said “<span class="caps">U.S.</span> leadership in establishing this global framework is essential.”<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> </span></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1169">greenhouse gases</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1467">global warming climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1890">U.S. Business Roundtable</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1891">tropical deforestation</a></div></div></div>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:28:58 +0000Bill Miller2042 at http://www.desmogblog.comU.S. Senate raises mileage requirement for cars but leaves taxes on oil industry untouchedhttp://www.desmogblog.com/u-s-senate-raises-mileage-requirement-for-cars-but-leaves-taxes-on-oil-industry-untouched
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/images/blog-feature-1953.jpg?itok=M6RXbhkR" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p>By a vote of 65 to 27, the Senate passed broad legislation requiring the first major increase in fuel-mileage requirements for passenger cars in more than 20 years.</p> <p>Environmental groups hailed the vote on higher mileage requirements as a long-sought victory that could eventually reduce <span class="caps">U.S.</span> gasoline consumption by more than 1 million gallons a day.</p> <p>There was disappointment, however, that it calls for vast expansion of renewable fuels over the next decade, but provides little in tax breaks or other subsidies to promote those fuels. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">The struggle provided <a href="http://www.nytimes.com:80/2007/06/22/us/22energy.html?th&amp;emc=th">a harbinger of potentially bigger obstacles</a> when Democrats try to pass legislation this fall to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases tied to global warming. Moreover Democrats said they would have additional opportunities to push their agenda when the House takes up similar legislation, with the goal of passing it before the July 4 recess.<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> </span></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/810">president bush</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1144">U.S. Senate</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1169">greenhouse gases</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1762">Democrats</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1763">energy bill</a></div></div></div>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:05:53 +0000Bill Miller1953 at http://www.desmogblog.comUK carbon emissions rise; official calls for stronger actionhttp://www.desmogblog.com/uk-carbon-emissions-rise-official-calls-for-stronger-action
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p>The <span class="caps">UK</span> produced total greenhouse emissions equivalent to 658.10 million tonnes of <span class="caps">CO</span>2 last year. This was down about 15% from the 1990 figure of 775.20 million tonnes.</p> <p>Carbon dioxide output rose from 544.2 million tonnes in 2005 to 560.6 million tonnes in 2006, a significant rise compared to previous years. <span class="caps">CO</span>2 output is now only 5.25% below the 1990 figure which is used as the baseline for the main Kyoto Protocol gases.</p> <p>Emissions of <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6506223.stm">all greenhouse gases in the Kyoto deal were up about 0.5%,</a> but are still below the target of a 12.5% cut from 1990 by the period 2008-2012.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">“While these figures are provisional, they underline why concerted effort to tackle climate change, both from government and wider society, is absolutely critical,” Miliband said.</p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/uk">UK</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/916">kyoto</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1169">greenhouse gases</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1217">David Miliband</a></div></div></div>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:41:13 +0000Bill Miller1619 at http://www.desmogblog.com